UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHRISTA MCAULIFFE
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL PTO, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity
as mayor of New York, et al.,
Defendants,
and
TEENS TAKE CHARGE; HISPANIC FEDERATION;
DESIS RISING UP AND MOVING; COALITION
FOR ASIAN AMERICAN CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES; O.R., a minor by and through his mother
and next friend, ELIZABETH PIERRET; A.S., a minor
by and through his father and next friend, ODUNLAMI
SHOWA; C.M., a minor by and through his mother and
next friend, ROSA VELASQUEZ; K.B., a minor by
and through her mother and next friend, TIFFANY M.
BOND; N.D.F. and N.E.F., minor children by and
through their mother and next friend, LAUREN R.
MAHONEY,
Proposed Defendant-Intervenors.
Case No. 1:18-cv-11657
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 37
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................3
PROPOSED INTERVENORS ........................................................................................................8
RELEVANT LAW & ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................14
I. Proposed Intervenors Should be Granted Intervention as of Right Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). ..............................................................................14
A. Proposed Intervenors’ Motion is Timely. ..............................................................15
B. Intervenors Have Substantial Interests that May be Impaired by the
Disposition of the Litigation. .................................................................................17
C. Proposed Intervenor’s Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by
Defendants. ............................................................................................................21
II. In the Alternative, Permissive Intervention Is Appropriate. ..............................................26
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................30
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 37
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE(S)
CASES
ASPIRA of New York, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y.,
58 F.R.D. 62 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) .................................................................................................29
Ass’n of Conn. Lobbyists LLC v. Garfield,
241 F.R.D. 100 (D. Conn. 2007)..............................................................................................29
Brennan v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ.,
260 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2001)............................................................................................. passim
Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka,
347 U.S. 483 (1954) ...........................................................................................................20, 29
Brumfield v. Dodd,
749 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................18
Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp.,
250 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................21
Caulfield v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y.,
632 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1980).....................................................................................................29
Comer v. Cisneros,
37 F.3d 775 (2d Cir. 1994).......................................................................................................27
Commack Self-Serv. Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Rubin,
170 F.R.D. 93 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) .........................................................................................17, 28
Donaldson v. United States,
400 U.S. 517 (1971) .................................................................................................................17
Dorsett v. County of Nassau,
283 F.R.D. 85 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ...............................................................................................25
Dow Jones & Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
161 F.R.D. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) .......................................................................................15, 16
Eddystone Rail Co. v. Jamex Transfer Servs.,
289 F. Supp. 3d 582 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ................................................................................15, 27
Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin (Fisher II),
136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016) .............................................................................................................29
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 37
iii
PAGE(S)
CASES
Floyd v. City of New York,
770 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 2014)...................................................................................................15
Friends of E. Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin.,
No. 15-CV-0441(JS)(ARL), 2016 WL 792411 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016) .............................24
Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Town of E. Hampton,
178 F.R.D. 39 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) ...............................................................................................17
Grutter v. Bollinger,
188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................18
Grutter v. Bollinger,
539 U.S. 306 (2003) .................................................................................................................29
Herdman v. Town of Angelica,
163 F.R.D. 180 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) ............................................................................................17
Kleissler v U.S. Forest Serv.,
157 F.3d 964 (3d Cir. 1998).....................................................................................................22
League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Johnson,
902 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................25
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm’n,
540 U.S. 93 (2003) (overruled on other grounds by
Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 588 U.S. 310 (2010)) ............................................15
McNeill v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.,
719 F. Supp. 233 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)...........................................................................................26
Miller v. Silbermann,
832 F. Supp. 663 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)...........................................................................................28
Mortg. Lenders Network, Inc. v. Rosenblum,
218 F.R.D. 381 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) .............................................................................................16
N.M. Off-Highway Vehicle Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
540 F. App’x 877 (10th Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................22
N.Y. Pub. Interest Research Grp. v. Regents of Univ. of N.Y.,
516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975).........................................................................................17, 25, 26
New York v. Pruitt,
Nos. 18-CV-1030, 18-CV-1048, 2018 WL 1684341 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2018) .......................27
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 4 of 37
iv
PAGE(S)
CASES
Olin Corp. v. Lamorak Ins. Co.,
325 F.R.D. 85 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) .........................................................................................16, 26
Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1,
551 U.S. 701 ......................................................................................................................20, 23
Podberesky v. Kirwan,
38 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................19
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke,
438 U.S. 265 (1978) .................................................................................................................29
Republic of the Philippines v. Abaya,
312 F.R.D. 119 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .............................................................................................16
Schuette v. Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action,
572 U.S. 291 (2014) .................................................................................................................29
Sheff v. O’Neill,
No. LND-HHD-CV-175045066-S, 2017 WL 4812624
(Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2017) ..............................................................................................29
Sherman v. Town of Chester,
339 F. Supp. 3d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ..........................................................................15, 16, 21
Stout v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ.,
882 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................29
Thomas v. Sch. Bd. St. Martin Par.,
756 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2014), on remand, No. 6:65-cv-11314,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8580 (W.D. La. Jan. 21, 2016)...........................................................29
Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.,
137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) .............................................................................................................15
Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am.,
404 U.S. 528 (1972) .................................................................................................................21
U.S. Postal Serv. v. Brennan,
579 F.2d 188 (2d Cir. 1978)...............................................................................................27, 28
United States v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc.,
88 F.R.D. 186 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ...............................................................................................27
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 5 of 37
v
PAGE(S)
CASES
Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga.,
247 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) ...............................................................................................19
STATUTES & RULES
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 24 ............................................................................................................14, 17
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 24(a)(2) .........................................................................................................14
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 24(b) ..............................................................................................................27
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 24(b)(1) ...........................................................................................................8
N.Y. Educ. Law § 2590-g(12)(b) (1997) .........................................................................................1
N.Y. Educ. Law § 2590-g(12)(d) .....................................................................................................3
OTHER AUTHORITIES
7C Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure (3d ed. 2019) ....................18, 21
Closing Achievement Gaps in Diverse and Low-Poverty Schools: An Action Guide
for District Leaders 8 (Public Impact, 2018), https://publicimpact.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Closing_Achievement_Gaps_in_Diverse_and_Low-
Poverty_Schools.pdf ..................................................................................................................5
Eliza Shapiro, How the Few Black and Hispanic Students at Stuyvesant High
School Feel, N.Y. Times (Mar. 22, 2019) ...............................................................................20
Eliza Shapiro, Only 7 Black Students Got Into N.Y.’s Most Selective High School,
Out of 895 Spots, N.Y. Times (Mar. 18, 2019),
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/nyregion/black-students-nyc-high-
schools.html ...............................................................................................................................2
Fernanda Santos, To Be Black at Stuyvesant High, N.Y. Times (Feb. 25, 2012) ..........................20
Jon Taylor, I’ve Spent Years Studying The Link Between SHSAT Scores and
Student Success. The Test Doesn’t Tell You As Much As You Might Think.,
Chalkbeat (June 22, 2018) .........................................................................................................3
Kimberly Reyes, Worry About the Black Students Who Get In, The Atlantic (Apr.
22, 2019), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ black-students-
nycs-elite-schools-are-exhausted/587506 ................................................................................20
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 6 of 37
vi
PAGE(S)
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Leslie Brody & Katie Honan, Top Lawmakers Open to Diversity Fix at New York
City’s Elite Schools, Wall Street J. (Mar. 20, 2019),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-lawmakers-open-to-diversity-fix-at-new-
york-citys-elite-schools-11553112360 ....................................................................................24
Leslie Brody, NYC’s Elite Public High Schools Admit a New Class—With Little
Change in Diversity, Wall Street J. (Mar. 19, 2019),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nycs-elite-public-high-schools-admit-a-new-
classwith-little-change-in-diversity-11552941000 ....................................................................2
Letter from NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc. to OCR (Sept. 27, 2012),
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Specialized-High-Schools-
Complaint.pdf ............................................................................................................................4
Megan Finnegan & Stephon Johnson, Benign Neglect?: Who Killed the Discovery
Program, Our Town (May 12, 2011).........................................................................................3
Motoko Rich, Amanda Cox, & Matthew Block, Money, Race and Success: How
Your School District Compares, N.Y. Times (Apr. 29, 2016),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-race-and-
success-how-your-school-district-compares.html .....................................................................5
NYCDOE, 2017—18 School Performance Dashboard,
https://tools.nycenet.edu/dashboard/#dbn=84M388
&report_type=EMS&view=City ...............................................................................................8
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 7 of 37
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Proposed Defendant-Intervenors file this Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion
to Intervene to ensure that modest steps taken by the New York City Department of Education
(“NYCDOE”) to increase opportunity and access to New York City’s most competitive and
highly-regarded public high schools are fully and vigorously defended.
The NYCDOE operates eight prestigious public high schools, known as the Specialized
High Schools, for which the sole determinant of admission is a standardized test: the Specialized
High School Admissions Test (“SHSAT”).1 See N.Y. Educ. Law § 2590-g(12)(b) (1997). Because
standardized tests are at best poor predictors of academic promise and potential to succeed, and
because New York City’s public-school system is beset with persistent barriers to educational
opportunities, many fully capable, high-potential students are denied access to the life-changing
opportunities that the Specialized High Schools offer.
Most glaringly, the admissions results for the Specialized High Schools have been plagued
by severe and longstanding racial disparities. Black and Latinx students who take the SHSAT are
far less likely to receive admissions offers than peers from other racial groups. Black and Latinx
students comprised 41% of about 28,000 eighth-grade students who took the Fall 2017 SHSAT,
but were only 9% of the 5,067 eighth-grade students who received admissions offers to Specialized
1 These eight schools are Stuyvesant High School (“Stuyvesant”); The Bronx High School
of Science (“Bronx Science”); Brooklyn Technical High School (“Brooklyn Tech”); Staten Island
Technical High School; Queens High School for the Sciences at York College; High School for
Mathematics, Science, and Engineering at City College; High School for American Studies at
Lehman College; and Brooklyn Latin School. A ninth high school, Fiorello H. LaGuardia High
School of Music & Art and Performing Arts, is also a Specialized High School; however, it does
not rely on the SHSAT for admission unlike the other eight schools and is therefore not a subject
of this dispute. See Op. and Order Den. Prelim. Inj. 6 n.3, ECF No. 66.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 8 of 37
2
High Schools for the 2018-19 academic year. Def.’s Mot. in Opp’n 13–14, ECF No. 51; Chadha
Decl. ¶ 33, ECF No. 49. For the 2019-20 academic year, only 7 Black students and 33 Latinx
students were automatically admitted to Stuyvesant and overall, Black students received only 190
and Latinx students only 316 of the 4,798 offers of admission to Specialized High Schools.2
Additionally, the schools lack geographic diversity. While most public middle schools send no
students to the Specialized High Schools, 50% of all offers go to students from only 30 of
approximately 600 middle schools. Def.’s Mot. in Opp’n 1, ECF No. 51. These disparities arise
from a history of racial discrimination, extreme segregation, and historical inequities in the New
York City public school system as well as the flawed educational policy of using a single test to
determine admissions.
In apparent recognition of the unjustifiable exclusion of qualified candidates who are
capable of succeeding at the Specialized High Schools and the deeply troubling racial and
geographical disparities within these schools, the NYCDOE began considering measures to
address these issues. Most recently, on June 3, 2018, Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor Carranza
announced a modest, but welcome, set of measures: the mandatory use and expansion of the
Discovery Program by all Specialized High Schools and a change in the methodology to determine
whether an applicant is disadvantaged for purposes of program eligibility (collectively, “the
Discovery Expansion”).
2 See Eliza Shapiro, Only 7 Black Students Got Into N.Y.’s Most Selective High School, Out
of 895 Spots, N.Y. Times (Mar. 18, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/nyregion/black-
students-nyc-high-schools.html; Leslie Brody, NYC’s Elite Public High Schools Admit a New
Class—With Little Change in Diversity, Wall Street J. (Mar. 19, 2019),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nycs-elite-public-high-schools-admit-a-new-classwith-little-
change-in-diversity-11552941000.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 9 of 37
3
This lawsuit challenges this small step to address ongoing inequities in the Specialized
High Schools admissions process. Proposed Intervenors—a Specialized High School student,
seventh- and eighth-grade students with increased chances of admission to the Specialized High
Schools under the Discovery Expansion, and organizations dedicated to increasing diversity and
integration in New York City public schools—seek to intervene in this lawsuit to protect their
interests in increased access to and diversity within the Specialized High Schools.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Since 1971, pursuant to the Hecht-Calandra Act, a single factor has been used to determine
access to the Specialized High Schools—a student’s rank-order score on the SHSAT. But this
statute has also always permitted the use of a “[D]iscovery [P]rogram to give disadvantaged
students of demonstrated high potential an opportunity” to gain admission into one of the
Specialized High Schools. N.Y. Educ. Law § 2590-g(12)(d). The Discovery Program is open to
students who (1) take the SHSAT but narrowly miss the SHSAT score cut-off; (2) are certified by
their local schools as “disadvantaged”; (3) are recommended by their middle school “as having
high potential for the special high school program”; and (4) attend, and subsequently pass, a
summer preparatory program administered by the high school. N.Y. Educ. Law § 2590-g(12)(d).
Historically, students admitted through the Discovery Program have thrived academically at the
Specialized High Schools.3
3 See Megan Finnegan & Stephon Johnson, Benign Neglect?: Who Killed the Discovery
Program, Our Town (May 12, 2011); see also Jon Taylor, I’ve Spent Years Studying The Link
Between SHSAT Scores and Student Success. The Test Doesn’t Tell You As Much As You Might
Think., Chalkbeat (June 22, 2018) (performance of 35 Discovery Program students at Brooklyn
Technical High School “was equal to that of other students” and that “Freshman year grade point
averages for the two groups were essentially identical: 86.6 versus 86.7.”).
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 10 of 37
4
In 2012, a multiracial, multiethnic coalition of ten community organizations4 filed a
complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), challenging
the single-test admissions process for the Specialized High Schools as racially discriminatory.5 In
addition to challenging the method of admissions mandated by state law, the complainants raised
the NYCDOE’s failure to take measures that are permissible under the same state law that would
help break down unjust barriers to admission and ensure equality of access for students of all races.
Indeed, until recently, the Discovery Program had not been being utilized at the two most
competitive schools—Stuyvesant and Bronx Science—and was underutilized at the remaining six
schools despite its proven success in expanding access for disadvantaged students. Advocates
called for full utilization of the Discovery Program to increase both fairness in admissions and
diversity at the Specialized High Schools. See supra note 5.
On June 3, 2018, Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor Carranza (collectively, “Defendants” or
“the City”) took a small step towards addressing inequitable access to the Specialized High
Schools by expanding the Discovery Program as permitted by state law. First, the City announced
that each Specialized High School would be required to use the Discovery Program to fill at least
13% of its seats for the 2019-20 school year and 20% of its seats in the following years. Wallack
4 Those organizations are the NYC Coalition for Educational Justice, La Fuente, the
Alliance for Quality Education, New York Communities for Change, Black New Yorkers for
Educational Excellence, the Community Service Society of New York, the Garifuna Coalition
USA, Inc., Make the Road New York, the Brooklyn Movement Center, UPROSE, and Desis
Rising Up and Moving. 5 The racial disparities at the Specialized High Schools at the time the OCR complaint was
filed were similar to the current ones. For example, of the 967 eighth-grade students admitted to
Stuyvesant for the 2012-13 school year, only 19 (2%) of the students were Black and 32 (3.3%)
were Latinx. See Letter from NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc. to OCR (Sept. 27, 2012),
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Specialized-High-Schools-Complaint.pdf.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 11 of 37
5
Decl. ¶ 19, ECF No. 50. Second, Defendants adjusted the definition of the term “disadvantaged”
to more equitably determine student eligibility for the Discovery Program.
Prior to this year, the DOE considered a student disadvantaged if one of the following five
factors was satisfied: (1) eligibility for free lunch; (2) eligibility for reduced-price lunch and
attendance at a Title I school; (3) receipt of New York City public assistance; (4) status as a foster
child, ward of the state, or residency in temporary housing; or (5) residency in the United States
for under four years in a home with a primary language other than English. Op. and Order Den.
Prelim. Inj. 11–12, ECF No. 66. Now, under the Discovery Expansion, in addition to meeting
substantially the same requirements, a student must also attend a high-poverty middle school
according to the City’s Economic Need Index (ENI)—a school with an ENI of 60% or above—to
be eligible for the program.6 Wallack Decl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 50. This measurement is particularly
apt because educational research has shown that educational achievement gaps can be explained,
at least in part, by the degree to which students attend schools with other low-income students.
High-poverty schools educate greater percentages of students who need greater supports and
services, and yet are persistently underfunded. In addition, high-poverty schools tend to be racially
segregated.7
6 To qualify as disadvantaged under the revised criteria, a student must attend a school with
an ENI of 60% or above and “(1) qualify for free or reduced-price lunch; (2) receive assistance
from the New York City Human Resources Administration; (3) be a foster child, a ward of the
state, or in temporary housing; or (4) have been an English Language Learner within the last two
years and have enrolled in a DOE school for the first time within the last four years.” Op. and
Order Den. Prelim. Inj. 12, ECF No. 66 (citing Wallack Decl. ¶ 20). 7 See, e.g., Closing Achievement Gaps in Diverse and Low-Poverty Schools: An Action
Guide for District Leaders 8 (Public Impact, 2018), https://publicimpact.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Closing_Achievement_Gaps_in_Diverse_and_Low-
Poverty_Schools.pdf; Motoko Rich, Amanda Cox, & Matthew Block, Money, Race and Success:
How Your School District Compares, N.Y. Times (Apr. 29, 2016),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-race-and-success-how-your-
school-district-compares.html.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 12 of 37
6
In December 2018, Plaintiffs filed the instant action. Plaintiffs argue that the NYCDOE’s
race-neutral changes to the Discovery Program eligibility criteria were adopted with the
discriminatory purpose of disadvantaging Asian-American students. Proposed Intervenors
disagree and seek to show, instead, that the race-neutral Discovery Expansion is designed to
mitigate the gross deficiencies of an admissions program that rests on a single test, to expand equal
access to publicly-funded educational opportunities, and to increase diversity along geographical,
socioeconomic, and racial lines in the Specialized High Schools. While Defendants have
acknowledged that they could not predict with precision what groups of students would benefit
most from the Discovery Expansion, they predicted that both the increased number of seats and
the changes to the eligibility requirements would likely increase, even if only marginally, the
diversity—in terms of race, class, ethnicity, and geography—of the admitted class of Specialized
High School students. See, e.g., Chadha Decl. ¶¶ 19–21, ECF No. 49; Op. and Order Den. Prelim.
Inj. 37, ECF No. 66. Indeed, the recently released numbers for admission through the Discovery
Program for the 2019–20 academic year show an increase in offers for Black, Latinx, and Asian-
American applicants and, depending on actual enrollment numbers, are likely to result in an
increase in the overall percentage of Black and Latinx students in the Specialized High Schools.
Proposed Intervenors’ interests are twofold. First, A.S., C.M., K.B., N.D.F., and N.E.F.,
who are a subset of Proposed Intervenors (collectively, “Applicant Intervenors”), are Black and
Latinx seventh- and eighth-grade students who have applied or plan to apply to the Specialized
High Schools and meet the Discovery Program’s revised eligibility criteria.8 Applicant Intervenors
8 While High School placements for the 2019–20 school year, along with SHSAT scores,
were released on March 18, 2019, the eighth-grade Proposed Intervenors do not yet know whether
they have qualified for admission under the Discovery Program. Applicant Intervenors did not
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 13 of 37
7
have a concrete interest in the opportunity to attend the schools under the Discovery Expansion.
Invalidation of the Discovery Expansion through this case would seriously impair this interest.
Second, all Proposed Intervenors have an interest in increasing diversity in the Specialized
High Schools. O.R. is an Afro-Latino student currently attending one of the Specialized High
Schools who has experienced tokenism at school; he is particularly well-equipped to discuss what
is at stake in the lawsuit. The Applicant Intervenors, all of whom hope to attend a Specialized High
School, likewise have an interest in attending schools that benefit from increased student body
diversity. Teens Take Charge (“TTC”), Hispanic Federation, Inc. (“HF”), Desis Rising Up and
Moving (“DRUM”), and the Coalition for Asian American Children and Families (“CACF”) are
all membership and/or community-based organizations that support education equity and whose
constituents include students and families of racial and ethnic groups who are underrepresented in
the Specialized High Schools. These organizations thus have a particular interest in advocating for
increased diversity in these schools.
While Proposed Intervenors do not believe that the Discovery Expansion is sufficient to
reverse the longstanding and entrenched racial exclusion of disadvantaged students from the
Specialized High Schools—particularly of Black and Latinx students and students from
underrepresented Asian-American ethnicities—they seek to intervene in this lawsuit to vigorously
defend the modest gains that the Discovery Expansion has engendered. Proposed Intervenors
respectfully move this Court to grant intervention as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the
score high enough on the SHSAT to be automatically admitted to any of the Specialized High
Schools, but the City has not yet announced the final cut-off scores for the Discovery Program.
Proposed Intervenors recognize that the determination of the final cut-off score for the Discovery
Program will implicate the nature of the interests of some Applicant Intervenors; however, the
Applicant Intervenors would continue to share the other interests of Proposed Intervenors, and
their experiences regarding the Specialized High Schools admissions process will remain relevant.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 14 of 37
8
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule
24(b)(1).
PROPOSED INTERVENORS
Proposed Intervenors are: (1) Elizabeth Pierret, on behalf of her minor child O.R, an Afro-
Latino student in the eleventh grade at Brooklyn Tech, see O.R. Decl. (attached hereto as
Exhibit 1); (2) Odunlami Showa, on behalf of his minor child A.S., a Black student in the eighth
grade at St. HOPE Leadership Academy (“St. HOPE”)—a middle school in Harlem with an 86.4%
ENI9—who took the SHSAT in the fall, see Showa Decl. (attached hereto as Exhibit 2); (3) Rosa
Velasquez, on behalf of her minor child C.M., a Latino student in the eighth grade at St. HOPE
who took the SHSAT in the fall, see Velasquez Decl. (attached hereto as Exhibit 3); (4) Tiffany
Bond, on behalf of her minor child K.B., a Black student in the seventh grade at St. HOPE, see
Bond Decl. (attached hereto as Exhibit 4); (5) Lauren Mahoney, on behalf of her minor children
N.D.F. and N.E.F., Black, twin siblings in the eighth grade at St. HOPE who took the SHSAT in
the fall, see Mahoney Decl. (attached hereto as Exhibit 5); (6) TTC,10 a student-led coalition of
high school students from across New York City’s five boroughs that advocates for educational
equity through oral and written testimony, discussions with policy makers, and interactive events,
see B.M. Decl. (attached hereto as Exhibit 6); (7) DRUM, a membership-led organization of South
Asian and Indo-Caribbean low-wage immigrant workers and youth, see Islam Decl. (attached
9 According to the Demographic Snapshot available on the NYCDOE website, the
applicable ENI for St. HOPE is 86.4%. However, according to the School Performance
Dashboard also available on the NYCDOE website, the applicable ENI is 89%. See NYCDOE,
2017—18 School Performance Dashboard, https://tools.nycenet.edu/dashboard/#dbn=84M388
&report_type=EMS&view=City. 10 TTC is a subsidiary of The Bell Voices, Inc., a nonprofit incorporated under the laws
of the State of New York. See Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 15 of 37
9
hereto as Exhibit 7); (8) HF, a nonprofit member organization that works to empower and advance
the Hispanic community through public policy advocacy, leadership development, and community
revitalization projects, see Calderon Decl. (attached hereto as Exhibit 8); and (9) CACF, the
nation’s only pan-Asian policy advocacy member organization for children and families, see
Gundanna Decl. (attached hereto as Exhibit 9).
O.R.—an Afro-Latino junior at Brooklyn Tech—was devastated when his SHSAT score
was not high enough to gain immediate admission to a Specialized High School. He initially
expressed reticence towards participating in the Discovery Program, in part due to the pressure of
having to prove himself as a Discovery Program participant; but he does not regret his decision to
complete the program and ultimately attend Brooklyn Tech. O.R. Decl. ¶ ¶ 25, 30. While he has
thrived as a student leader in a predominantly Latinx affinity group at Brooklyn Tech, one of the
most racially diverse of the Specialized High Schools, O.R. has nonetheless experienced being the
only Latinx or Black student in a classroom. As a result, he has experienced being pigeonholed as
the student who can provide “the Black perspective” when classroom conversations touch upon
race because he “ha[s] the darkest skin in the room.” Id. ¶ 27. O.R. recalls instances of everyone
in his ninth-grade class looking at him during classroom discussions about slavery, and of a teacher
in another classroom giving students permission, including white students, to use the “N-word”
because the word appeared in a book discussed by the class. O.R. considers these instances among
the “negative impacts of the lack of diversity at Brooklyn Tech.” Id. ¶ 25.
A.S. is a Black student in eighth grade at St. HOPE. A.S. has been studying to take the
SHSAT since sixth grade. After years of studying during the school week and on the weekends,
A.S. took the exam in October 2018. A.S.’s older sister, R.S., took the SHSAT last year after
studying for years, and was devastated when she was not admitted to a Specialized High School.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 16 of 37
10
A.S.’s family believes “an excellent education can prepare our children for a positive life.” Showa
Decl. ¶ 8. For A.S. and his family, “education is the most important thing, because it is about the
future.” Id. Mr. Showa wants A.S. to go to an academically excellent school, but also one that is
racially diverse. He knows that people “expand their scope of understanding” from exposure to
people with different backgrounds and believes that his son will be more relaxed and more able to
focus on his studies if he is not in a racially isolated environment. Id. ¶ 11. A.S. was informed on
March 18, 2019, that his SHSAT score was not high enough for automatic admission to one of the
Specialized High Schools, so the Discovery Program is now his only possible chance of admission
to one of the schools for ninth grade.
C.M. is a Latino student in eighth grade at St. HOPE. C.M. is an honor roll student, loves
baseball and math (which comes naturally to him), and hopes to study computer science someday.
C.M. was inspired by his cousin, who went to Stuyvesant, to apply to the Specialized High Schools,
so C.M. asked his mom to buy him a book to begin studying during the summer between seventh
and eighth grade when he had free time from his baseball league. At the start of eighth grade, C.M.
began studying two nights a week with his middle school’s SHSAT preparatory program.
Velasquez Decl. ¶ 10. C.M. was informed on March 18, 2019, that his SHSAT score was not high
enough to qualify him for automatic admission to one of the Specialized High Schools, so the
Discovery Program is now his only possible chance of admission to one of the schools for ninth
grade.
K.B. is a Black student in seventh grade at St. HOPE. She is an honor roll student who
participates in an “extended days” program at St. HOPE for extra credit. Bond Decl. ¶ 1. She is
involved in student government and is particularly interested in and excels at STEM subjects. K.B.
is also involved in the Harlem Children’s Zone afterschool program. In January 2019, K.B. was
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 17 of 37
11
selected to participate in St. HOPE’s SHSAT preparation program, which began the third quarter
of her seventh-grade year and takes place every day, replacing her art class. K.B. is willing to make
this sacrifice in order to increase her chances of admission to a Specialized High School. K.B.’s
mother believes that the Discovery Program gives children from disadvantaged backgrounds a
fairer chance to attend a Specialized High School. Id. ¶ 15.
N.D.F. is a Black student in eighth grade at St. HOPE. She has made the honor roll every
quarter since sixth grade and currently has a grade of 4 in math, which is the highest grade. N.D.F
enjoys drawing, music, and choreography. In the seventh grade, N.D.F was invited to join the
SHSAT preparation program at St. HOPE, which, at the time, was an extended, thirty-minute
period at the end of the school day. N.D.F participated in the preparation program from the end of
seventh grade until eighth grade, when she took the exam. N.D.F wants to attend a Specialized
High School because she believes it would help her succeed in high school, college, and beyond.
Mahoney Decl. ¶ 18. N.D.F. was informed on March 18, 2019, that her SHSAT score was not high
enough to qualify for automatic admission to one of the Specialized High Schools, so the
Discovery Program is now her only possible chance of admission to one of the schools for ninth
grade.
N.E.F. is also a Black student in eighth grade at St. HOPE, and N.D.F.’s twin brother.
N.E.F. has been academically successful at St. HOPE and particularly enjoys Math and U.S.
History. He plays on St. HOPE’s football team, takes fencing lessons after school, and participated
in the school’s SHSAT preparation program. N.E.F was so determined to get into a Specialized
High School that he took the SHSAT despite having a fever on exam day. N.E.F. wants to attend
a Specialized High School because he believes that he will be motivated to thrive in the challenging
academic environment but would also like to take advantage of the available extracurricular
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 18 of 37
12
activities. Id. ¶ 16. N.E.F. was informed on March 18, 2019 that his SHSAT score was not high
enough to qualify for automatic admission to a Specialized High School, so the Discovery Program
is his only chance of admission for ninth grade. N.E.F and N.D.F.’s mother believes that being
admitted to a Specialized High School would offer her children a chance at a better life and that
the Specialized High Schools “should be more diverse, like the NYC public school system as a
whole,” as they are “public schools just like the other public schools.” Id. ¶ 21.
TTC is a student-led group that advocates for educational equity. One of TTC’s two core
goals is to advocate for fair admission policies that lead to diversity and equity for all New York
City high schools. B.M. Decl. ¶ 4. TTC advocates for diversity in the Specialized High Schools
because it believes that all students benefit from racially diverse classrooms, because the current
environment at Specialized High Schools is isolating and unwelcoming to the Black and Latinx
students who are admitted, and because the system breeds a culture of division and elitism that
harms all New York City students. Id. ¶ 9. TTC advocates for changes to the admissions to New
York City’s Specialized High Schools, including replacing the single-measure, multiple-choice
entrance exam with a more holistic admissions method. Id. ¶ 11.
TTC’s members come from more than thirty different high schools across all five New
York City boroughs. Its membership includes students of many different racial and ethnic
identities, including Black, Latinx, White, Middle Eastern, South Asian, East Asian, West African,
and Caribbean, who have an interest in school integration and equity. Id. ¶ 6. Many of its members
have applied for admission to Specialized High Schools, but few received offers. In some cases,
students who were valedictorians or salutatorians of their eighth-grade classes did not score high
enough on the admissions test to receive an offer. Id. And TTC’s members who do attend
Specialized High Schools experience the negative effects of a segregated school environment.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 19 of 37
13
DRUM is a nonprofit member organization focused on empowering low income, South
Asian and Indo-Caribbean immigrant workers, youth, and families in New York City through civil
rights and immigrants’ rights advocacy. Islam Decl. ¶ 2. DRUM’s programs include YouthPower!,
a youth-led program that lifts up, inter alia, low-income youth in New York City’s public schools.
As part of its education work, DRUM and YouthPower! have advocated for equitable access to
New York City’s Specialized High Schools for many years, particularly for students of working
class, immigrant, and South Asian and Indo-Caribbean backgrounds, who are underrepresented in
the Specialized High Schools and face significant barriers to access because of their ethnic
backgrounds, and their economic and immigration status. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. DRUM has members who
have benefited from the Discovery Program, and others who go to high ENI middle schools in the
Bronx and Queens and will benefit from the Program’s expansion. DRUM’s members therefore
not only have an interest in ethnic and economic diversity at the Specialized High Schools, but
also in the increased opportunity for admission under the new program.
HF is a nonprofit membership organization that supports Hispanic families and strengthens
Latinx institutions through work in areas, such as education, immigration, civic engagement and
economic empowerment. Calderon Decl. ¶ 3. HF’s membership includes a network of over 100
Latinx grassroot and nonprofit organizations, many of which have students who attend middle
schools that would benefit from an expanded Discovery Program. Id. ¶ 4. For nearly two decades,
HF has been advancing educational equity, promoting racial diversity, and diminishing racial
isolation for students of color, particularly Latinx students, through several initiatives, including
Pathways to Academic Excellence workshops with its Pathways to College Prep and Pathways for
Early Childhood Literacy components, and numerous community forums and town halls. Id. ¶ 5.
HF also has promoted the benefits of the Discovery Program and partnered with the New York
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 20 of 37
14
City Department of Education to co-host the first ever Spanish Language Specialized High Schools
Information Session and Fair. In 2018 alone, through these initiatives, HF served more than 5,000
students, parents or caregivers, and community members. Id.
CACF is a nonprofit membership organization that advocates for equity and opportunity
for marginalized Asian Pacific American (“APA”) children and families. Gundanna Decl. ¶ 2. The
APA community is very diverse, consisting of groups from East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia,
the Indo-Caribbean, and Pacific Islands. Id. ¶ 2. CACF’s membership includes over 45
organizations serving the needs of the APA community. Id. Through its policy work, CACF has a
history of advocating for education equity and increased accessibility of high-quality schools for
underrepresented APA students, including those from low-income families. Id. ¶ 3. CACF staff
testify at public hearings, hold community forums to educate the community on education issues,
and release policy documents. Id. ¶¶ 10—12. Some of the members of CACF’s youth engagement
program, the Asian American Student Advocacy Project, currently attend Specialized High
Schools or participated in the Specialized High School admissions process. Id. ¶ 13. CACF
believes integration and equity in education benefits all students and that racially segregated
learning environments pose serious potential harms to students’ development. Id. ¶ 8. CACF and
its member organizations have an interest in increased opportunity for admission for their members
under the expanded Discovery Program and an interest in increased diversity within the schools,
particularly from underrepresented and marginalized Asian-American communities.
RELEVANT LAW & ANALYSIS
I. Proposed Intervenors Should be Granted Intervention as of Right Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).
Rule 24 permits a party to intervene in ongoing litigation as of right or by permission of
the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), a Court “must permit” a party to intervene
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 21 of 37
15
as of right if the movant has “(1) timely file[d] an application, (2) show[ed] an interest in the action,
(3) demonstrate[d] that the interest may be impaired by the disposition of the action, and
(4) showed that the interest is not protected adequately by the parties to the action.” Brennan v.
N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 260 F.3d 123, 128–29 (2d Cir. 2001) (quotation marks and internal citation
omitted); see also Sherman v. Town of Chester, 339 F. Supp. 3d 346, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).11
A. Proposed Intervenors’ Motion is Timely.
Courts “have not imposed a hard and fast rule defining timeliness under Rule 24(a),
preferring instead . . . that the ruling be based on all the circumstances of the case.” Dow Jones &
Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 161 F.R.D. 247, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). In the Second Circuit such
circumstances include: “(a) the length of time the applicant knew or should have known of its
interest before making the motion; (b) prejudice to existing parties resulting from the applicant’s
delay; (c) prejudice to the applicant if the motion is denied; and (d) the presence of unusual
circumstances militating for or against a finding of timeliness.” Floyd v. City of New York, 770
F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing MasterCard Int’l Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 471 F.3d
377, 390 (2d Cir. 2006)).
11 In Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a litigant must
possess Article III standing in order to intervene as of right “if the intervenor wishes to pursue
relief not requested by a plaintiff” or “to pursue relief that is different from that which is sought by
a party with standing.” 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1648, 1651 (2017) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted) (emphasis added). Specifically, the Court held that “[f]or all relief sought, there must be
a litigant with standing, whether that litigant joins the lawsuit as a plaintiff, a coplaintiff, or an
intervenor of right.” Id. at 1648. However, a district court “need not address the standing of the
intervenor-defendants” whose position is identical to the named defendant. McConnell v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93, 233 (2003) (overruled on other grounds by Citizens United v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 588 U.S. 310 (2010)); see also Eddystone Rail Co. v. Jamex Transfer Servs.,
289 F. Supp. 3d 582, 590 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Here, Defendants and Proposed Intervenors seek the
same relief—the retention of the Discovery Expansion. Accordingly, Proposed Intervenors need
not independently establish Article III standing for intervention as of right. See Town of Chester,
137 S. Ct. at 1651.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 22 of 37
16
All of these factors counsel in favor of intervention as of right in the instant matter and the
parties do not dispute that this motion is timely. This case was filed on December 13, 2018, and
this year’s SHSAT scores were released on March 18, 2019, at which time Proposed Eighth-Grade
Intervenors learned for the first time that they would not be granted automatic admission to the
Specialized High Schools but may still be eligible for admission through the Discovery Program.
Proposed Intervenors’ application is therefore timely. See, e.g., Republic of the Philippines v.
Abaya, 312 F.R.D. 119, 123 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (application in which plaintiffs waited “nearly a
year to intervene in the action” was timely); Dow Jones & Co., 161 F.R.D. at 251–53 (finding
intervention motion timely despite its filing after issuance of order granting summary judgment);
Mortg. Lenders Network, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 218 F.R.D. 381, 383–84 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (granting
motion to intervene when filed more than six months after the proposed intervenors knew or
should have known of their interest in the litigation).
Moreover, intervention at this stage will not cause any prejudice because discovery has
just begun and Proposed Intervenors do not seek a delay of the proceedings. See, e.g., Sherman,
339 F. Supp. 3d at 359 (noting that the Second Circuit recognized that intervention was timely
where “the parties ha[d] not even begun discovery”) (citing Laroe Estates, Inc. v. Town of Chester,
828 F.3d 60, 67 (2d Cir. 2016)); Olin Corp. v. Lamorak Ins. Co., 325 F.R.D. 85, 88 (S.D.N.Y.
2018) (granting motion to intervene of right where “summary judgment briefing has not yet
begun” even though “discovery deadlines have come and gone”). Finally, as described below,
Proposed Intervenors have interests that may be impaired by the disposition of this litigation and
may suffer prejudice if they are not permitted to intervene.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 23 of 37
17
B. Intervenors Have Substantial Interests that May be Impaired by the
Disposition of the Litigation.
The Second Circuit defines the nature of the interest in the subject matter of the action
under Rule 24 as one that is “direct, substantial, and legally protectable[,]” as opposed to “remote
from the subject matter of the proceeding, or . . . contingent upon the occurrence of a sequence of
events[.]” Brennan, 260 F.3d at 129 (quoting Washington Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Mass. Mun.
Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 1990)); accord Donaldson v. United States, 400
U.S. 517, 531 (1971) (requiring “significantly protectable interest”); see also N.Y. Pub. Interest
Research Grp. v. Regents of Univ. of N.Y., 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir. 1975) (per curiam) (finding
interest and granting intervention of pharmacists in action challenging advertising of prescription
drug prices); Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Town of E. Hampton, 178 F.R.D. 39, 42 (E.D.N.Y.
1998) (finding the interest of environmental organization dedicated to preserving the rural
character of a town “would likely be impaired” if controversy decided absent the organization);
see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (advisory committee’s note) (“If an absentee would be
substantially affected in a practical sense by the determination made in an action, he should, as a
general rule, be entitled to intervene[.]”).
Interests protected by a constitutional provision or statute of general application are
construed broadly and are particularly likely to warrant intervention, especially when the lawsuit
raises a question of public interest. “The Supreme Court has recognized that ‘certain public
concerns’ may constitute an adequate ‘interest’ within the meaning of [Rule 24(a)(2)].’” Herdman
v. Town of Angelica, 163 F.R.D. 180, 187 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (quoting Diamond v. Charles, 476
U.S. 54, 68 (1986)) (alteration in original). This Court, therefore, must “take into account both the
public nature” of the instant litigation “and the basis for, and strength of, [Proposed Intervenors’]
particular interest in the outcome of the litigation.” Id.; accord Commack Self-Serv. Kosher Meats,
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 24 of 37
18
Inc. v. Rubin, 170 F.R.D. 93, 100 (E.D.N.Y. 1996); see also, e.g., Brumfield v. Dodd, 749 F.3d
339, 344 (5th Cir. 2014) (“The interest requirement may be judged by a more lenient standard if
the case involves a public interest question or is brought by a public interest group. The zone of
interests protected by a constitutional provision or statute of general application is arguably
broader than are the protectable interests recognized in other contexts.” (internal citations
omitted)); cf. 7C Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1908.1 (3d ed.
2019) (“[I]n cases challenging various statutory schemes as unconstitutional or as improperly
interpreted and applied, the courts have recognized that the interests of those who are governed by
those schemes are sufficient to support intervention.”).
Proposed Intervenors have at least two categories of significant interests.
First, Applicant Intervenors have an interest in increased access to educational opportunity,
which is directly impacted by this challenge to the Discovery Expansion. As a seventh grader, K.B.
has an interest in having her potential admission to the Specialized High Schools determined under
the Discovery Expansion, which increases the likelihood of admission for disadvantaged students,
like herself, who meet the criteria articulated by the NYCDOE. And, A.S., C.M., N.D.F., and
N.E.F. (“Eighth Grade Applicant Intervenors”), who were not admitted automatically based on
their SHSAT scores, have an interest in the Discovery Expansion because it is now their only
chance of admission to the Specialized High Schools for the 2019–20 school year. These
individuals have a protectable interest for purposes of intervention to defend an existing
educational policy that tangibly and directly affects them. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394,
398 (6th Cir. 1999) (proposed intervenors had “a substantial legal interest in educational
opportunity, which requires preserving access to the University for African-American and Latino/a
students and preventing a decline in the enrollment of African-American and Latino/a students[]”);
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 25 of 37
19
cf. Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147, 162 n.* (4th Cir. 1994) (discussing allowance of students
to intervene to defend scholarship program for African Americans at University of Maryland);
Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 247 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that
organizations representing applicants and African-American individuals had successfully
intervened to defend consideration of race in remedying Georgia’s formerly-segregated system of
higher education).
The Applicant Intervenors have each either applied to the Specialized High Schools for the
2019–20 school year or taken steps towards taking the SHSAT next year. Each qualifies for the
Discovery Expansion because each attends a school with a higher than 60% ENI and meets the
individual criteria. See Showa Decl. ¶ 5; Velasquez Decl. ¶ 13; Bond Decl. ¶ 3; Mahoney Decl.
¶ 3. Given the very limited access that Black and Latinx students have to these top schools, any
increase in their opportunity for admissions is significant, rendering their interest direct, not remote
or contingent. See Brennan, 260 F.3d at 129.
This interest could be seriously impaired by the disposition of this litigation. If the
Discovery Expansion were to end as the result of this case, Applicant Intervenors would be directly
harmed, as their chances of admission would be diminished.
Second, all Proposed Intervenors have an interest in preserving any amount of increased
racial diversity and decreased racial isolation that the Discovery Expansion promises to bring to
the Specialized High Schools. As Justice Kennedy expressed:
This Nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic
commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal
opportunity for all of its children. A compelling interest exists in
avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its
discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue. Likewise, a district
may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student
population.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 26 of 37
20
Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 797–98 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); see also Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, 347
U.S. 483, 493–94 (1954) (describing education as “a principal instrument in awakening the child
to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust
normally to his environment[,]” and recognizing the “intangible” harm of racial segregation, which
“generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts
and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”).
The current single-test method of admissions to the Specialized High Schools makes it
unlikely for even highly capable students from Black, Latinx, and underrepresented Asian
communities, who are more likely to attend high-poverty, low-opportunity, and segregated middle
schools, to access these elite schools. And the Specialized High Schools are unwelcoming
educational environments for the few underrepresented students that defy the odds and gain
admission.12 Based on the modeling by the NYCDOE, the Discovery Expansion will increase the
diversity of the student bodies at the Specialized High Schools along multiple measures, including
race, socioeconomic status, and geography. Wallack Decl. ¶ 19; Chadha Decl. ¶¶ 19–20; Chadha
Decl. Ex. 1. Proposed Intervenors’ substantial interest in educational opportunity and school
diversity are thus directly impacted by this challenge to the Discovery Expansion and NYCDOE’s
efforts to increase opportunity and improve diversity at the Specialized High Schools.
Accordingly, the Intervenors have a significant interest in the instant litigation.
12 See, e.g., Eliza Shapiro, How the Few Black and Hispanic Students at Stuyvesant High
School Feel, N.Y. Times (Mar. 22, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/nyregion/
stuyvesant-high-school-black-students.html; Kimberly Reyes, Worry About the Black Students
Who Get In, The Atlantic (Apr. 22, 2019), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/
black-students-nycs-elite-schools-are-exhausted/587506/; Fernanda Santos, To Be Black at
Stuyvesant High, N.Y. Times (Feb. 25, 2012), https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/education/
black-at-stuyvesant-high-one-girls-experience.html.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 27 of 37
21
C. Proposed Intervenor’s Interests Are Not Adequately Represented by
Defendants.
Finally, intervention as of right is warranted because Proposed Intervenors’ interests are
not “adequately represent[ed]” by “the existing parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); see also
Sherman, 339 F. Supp. 3d at 360 (citing Laroe, 828 F.3d at 70). Courts must permit intervention
under this factor unless the interests of existing parties are “so similar to those of [Intervenors] that
adequacy of representation [is] assured.” Brennan, 260 F.3d at 132–33. This analysis does not
require certainty about how existing parties will litigate the case; it is sufficient that representation
of proposed intervenors’ interests “‘may be’ inadequate.” Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of
Am., 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972); see also id. at 538 (observing “sufficient doubt about the
adequacy of representation to warrant intervention”); 7C Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1909 (3d ed. 2019) (an applicant ordinarily should be permitted to
intervene as of right “unless it is clear that the party will provide adequate representation for the
absentee.”).
Where, as here, Proposed Intervenors have the same ultimate objective as Defendants, it is
Proposed Intervenors’ burden to overcome the presumption of adequacy. See Butler, Fitzgerald &
Potter v. Sequa Corp., 250 F.3d 171, 179–80 (2d Cir. 2001). The Second Circuit has not precisely
defined what is necessary to meet this heightened burden. See id. at 180 (holding that, while “not
an exhaustive list, . . . evidence of collusion, adversity of interest, nonfeasance, or incompetence
may suffice to overcome the presumption of adequacy.”). Nonetheless, Proposed Intervenors
overcome the presumption of adequacy because their interests diverge from defendants in two key
ways: (1) Defendants have institutional interests that may outweigh the interests in school diversity
they share with Proposed Intervenors, creating a real possibility that Defendants may retreat from
their current efforts or choose to resolve this case on terms which do not represent Proposed
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 28 of 37
22
Intervenors’ interests in increased diversity or chance of admissions to the schools; and
(2) Proposed Intervenors may raise legal arguments in defense of the Discovery Program that
Defendants are disincentivized from raising themselves. Moreover, Proposed Intervenors are
uniquely qualified to assist the Court regarding questions about the discriminatory impact of the
current admissions system and the need for the City’s efforts to remedy these inequities.
First, Defendants have competing priorities that may outweigh the interests they share with
Proposed Intervenors. It is plausible that the City’s position on the importance of diversity in the
Specialized High Schools may change either during the pendency of the litigation or following the
resolution of this litigation. Despite years of advocacy from community members on this issue,
previous administrations have not done enough to address the continuing diversity crisis in these
schools and, this administration has enacted the modest changes at issue in this case only after
years of advocacy by parents and civil rights groups. Defendants thus should not be presumed to
be adequate representatives for Proposed Intervenors for the duration of this litigation. See, e.g.,
N.M. Off-Highway Vehicle Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv., 540 F. App’x 877, 881 (10th Cir. 2013)
(finding that government agency could not adequately represent the intervenors’ interests in part
because “there is no guarantee that the Forest Service’s policy will not shift during litigation”).
Nor should Defendants be presumed to adequately represent Proposed Intervenors with respect to
ensuring a lasting resolution to this case designed to withstand the policy changes of future
administrations. See, e.g., Kleissler v U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964, 973–74 (3d Cir. 1998)
(finding inadequate representation and granting intervention in part because the court did not
believe that it was “realistic to assume that the [government] agency’s programs [would] remain
static or unaffected by unanticipated policy shifts.”).
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 29 of 37
23
Moreover, unlike Proposed Intervenors, Defendants have an interest in resolving this case
that is not necessarily coextensive with defending the Discovery Program and the ability to pursue
diversity, including racial diversity, in city schools. In Brennan v. NYC Department of Education,
the Second Circuit upheld the grant of intervention as of right to school district employees where
the Defendant NYC Board of Education had an interest in defending its hiring practices but also
possibly had “an equally strong or stronger interest in bringing such litigation to an end by
settlements involving the displacement of employees who are not parties to the action.” Brennan,
260 F.3d at 133.
Similarly, while Defendants have thus far defended the Discovery Expansion, as in
Brennan, they may have “an equally strong or stronger interest” in resolving the litigation by
ending or otherwise diminishing the Discovery Expansion as part of a settlement. Id. Moreover,
Defendants have already demonstrated that their interest in defending the Discovery Expansion is
tempered by their interest in a fast and efficient process for assigning students to the Specialized
High Schools. See First Letter Mot. to Expedite Decision at 4, ECF No. 43. Although speedy
resolution of this case and the timely release of admissions decisions are laudable interests,
Proposed Intervenors’ interest in the Discovery Expansion could never be counterbalanced by an
interest in the smooth administration of high school assignments. Any resolution of the case that
narrows the Discovery Program would harm the interests of Proposed Intervenors. Further, a
retreat from efforts to increase school diversity would communicate the diminished import of this
“historic commitment” with real harm to students. Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 797 (Kennedy,
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 30 of 37
24
J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).13
The concern that the City would retreat from its current efforts, which represent a small
step towards increasing equity and opportunity, is real and significant. Up until this point and even
through the Discovery Expansion, the City has prioritized other interests over diversifying the
Specialized High Schools. For example, Defendants could, but have chosen not to, immediately
change the admissions policy for the other five Specialized High Schools not named in the Hecht-
Calandra Act.14 This would allow for increased fairness in admissions to those five schools and
likely achieve much greater diversity than can be achieved by the Discovery Expansion. While the
small step represented by the Discovery Expansion is laudable, its modest impact—compared to
other available reforms—reflects how the City’s interests in addressing the underrepresentation of
Black, Latinx, and certain Asian students in the Specialized High Schools continue to be weighed
against competing pressures. Defendants’ failure to take additional steps, therefore, raises concerns
about their commitment to follow through on the Discovery Expansion as a necessary measure to
increase diversity regardless of pressures from critics of the City’s efforts to expand opportunities
for admissions and increase diversity at the Specialized High Schools.
13 To be clear, the City’s inability to adequately represent Proposed Intervenors’ interests
extends beyond settlement decisions and affects other stages of the litigation. For example,
interests have already diverged where the City elected to answer the complaint rather than file a
vigorous motion to dismiss under Rule 12. See, e.g., Friends of E. Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Fed.
Aviation Admin., No. 15-CV-0441(JS)(ARL), 2016 WL 792411, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016)
(finding interests inadequately represented and noting that government defendant elected to answer
rather than move to dismiss the complaint). Further, as is discussed infra, the Proposed Intervenors
may present substantive arguments that the City, as an institution, is unable or disinclined to
advance. 14 See Leslie Brody & Katie Honan, Top Lawmakers Open to Diversity Fix at New York
City’s Elite Schools, Wall Street J. (Mar. 20, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-lawmakers-
open-to-diversity-fix-at-new-york-citys-elite-schools-11553112360 (Gov. Andrew Cuomo “said
the New York City Council should come up with a new admissions policy for the five newer
specialized high schools” but “[t]he mayor has resisted doing so. ‘Legally, the way they’re
structured, it is better to have a single legislative solution for all of them,’ [de Blasio] said”).
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 31 of 37
25
Second, Defendants are disincentivized from raising factual and legal arguments that would
portray the City or State in an unfavorable light. This includes potential evidence of past intentional
discrimination, including the origins of the single-test admissions policy, and legal arguments
regarding the City’s duty to eradicate discrimination. Cf. Brennan, 260 F.3d at 130 (“[I]t is
precisely the existence or non-existence of prior discrimination and its relationship to appellants’
present status that they want to contest by intervening as parties. The merits can, therefore, be
resolved only after appellants have an opportunity for discovery and the presentation of evidence
as a party to the action.”); N.Y. Pub. Interest Research Grp., 516 F.2d at 352 (noting that potential
intervenors “should have an opportunity to make their own arguments to protect their own
interests” and finding it likely that movants would “make a more vigorous presentation” of certain
arguments than government defendants); League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Johnson, 902
F.3d 572, 580 (6th Cir. 2018) (finding inadequate representation where proposed intervenors had
sought to make additional defenses than those presented in government defendant’s motion to
dismiss).
Moreover, Proposed Intervenors bring to this litigation the real-life experience of
communities and families who will directly benefit from the educational opportunities presented
by the Specialized High Schools, that have been largely beyond their reach, and the enhanced
diversity within these schools. By contrast, the current Defendants bring an institutional and
political perspective to this controversy and will likely defend the Discovery Expansion primarily
from that standpoint. See Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 283 F.R.D. 85, 93 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (finding
a police union’s interests inadequately represented, even though interests aligned with the police
department’s, because the department represented the institution as a whole while the union
protected the individual officers and specifically safeguarded the officers’ interests). Without
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 32 of 37
26
Proposed Intervenors, there would be an imbalanced presentation of the interests and concerns
raised in this case, with the case including individuals and organizations who oppose the Discovery
Expansion, but not the students and families who stand to benefit. Proposed Intervenors, unlike
Defendants, are uniquely qualified to give testimony on the impact of inequities in the system.
They have firsthand experience applying to Specialized High Schools, experiencing the barriers
of being unequipped and uninformed in that process, feeling isolated and tokenized while attending
a Specialized High School, attending schools, whether the Specialized High Schools or others, that
do not reflect the rich and vibrant diversity of the city where they live, and participating in a school
system in which pathways to success are unfairly closed to many. Proposed Intervenors can further
testify about the impact of these inequities on their education and their futures.
However vigorously the City defends its ability to pursue educational diversity, it cannot
adequately represent the interests of students in accessing diverse and equal educational
opportunities when the City has some responsibility for the dearth of these opportunities in the
first place. Proposed Intervenors’ participation is needed, therefore, to “make a more vigorous
presentation” of the importance of racial, as well as socioeconomic and geographic, diversity in
the Specialized High Schools. N.Y. Pub. Interest Research Grp, 516 F.2d at 352.
Accordingly, Proposed Intervenors’ presence in this action is necessary to adequately
represent their interests.
II. In the Alternative, Permissive Intervention Is Appropriate.
In the alternative, Proposed Intervenors respectfully request the Court grant permissive
intervention. Permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) “is to be liberally construed” in favor
of intervention. Olin Corp., 325 F.R.D. at 87 (quoting Degrafinreid v. Ricks, 417 F. Supp. 2d 403,
407 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)); see also McNeill v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 719 F. Supp. 233, 250 (S.D.N.Y.
1989).
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 33 of 37
27
Under Rule 24(b), this Court may, in its discretion, “permit anyone to intervene” provided
that the party: (1) files a “timely motion,” and (2) “has a claim or defense that shares with the main
action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). The “principal consideration” is
“whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties.” U.S. Postal Serv. v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188, 191 (2d Cir. 1978) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Eddystone Rail Co. v. Jamex Transfer Servs., 289 F. Supp. 3d 582, 595
(S.D.N.Y. 2018) (citing U.S. Postal Serv., 579 F.2d at 191).
Courts may consider other factors, including “‘the nature and extent of the intervenors’
interests’ . . . and ‘whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full
development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication
of the legal questions presented.’” U.S. Postal Serv., 579 F.2d at 191–92 (quoting Spangler v.
Pasadena City Bd. of Ed., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977)). Courts may also consider whether
their interests are “adequately represented by the other parties,” id., but this “is clearly a minor
factor at most.” United States v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 88 F.R.D. 186, 189 (S.D.N.Y.
1980); see also New York v. Pruitt, Nos. 18-CV-1030, 18-CV-1048, 2018 WL 1684341, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2018) (considering adequacy just one of several factors to be considered, but
not required).
Permissive intervention is appropriate here. First, this motion is timely for the reasons
outlined above. Second, the defenses of Proposed Intervenors and those of Defendants share
questions of fact and law. Like Defendants, Proposed Intervenors will, at a minimum, defend the
constitutionality of the revised eligibility criteria for the Discovery Expansion. See Comer v.
Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 801–02 (2d Cir. 1994) (granting intervention to minority residents who had
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 34 of 37
28
applied for or were denied housing subsidies where the existing plaintiffs were challenging that
subsidy program).
Critically, Proposed Intervenors’ claims would not “unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” U.S. Postal Serv., 579 F.2d at 191. Discovery
has just begun and Proposed Intervenors are prepared to comply with the schedule set by this
Court. See supra Section I.A. And although adequacy of representation is a far less significant
consideration for permissive intervention, this Court can consider, as argued above, that the
interests of Proposed Intervenors cannot be “adequately represented” by Defendants. Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also supra Section I.C.
Finally, Proposed Intervenors and their counsel offer specialized expertise and familiarity
with the factual and legal issues that “will significantly contribute to full development of the
underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions
presented.” U.S. Postal Serv., 579 F.2d at 192 (quoting Spangler, 552 F.2d at 1329). Proposed
Intervenors would be the only parties which include children in middle schools who will be directly
harmed should Plaintiffs prevail in their challenge of the Discovery Expansion, as well as current
students in the Specialized High Schools who will be harmed by the failure to increase the diversity
of those schools. See supra pp. 8-12. This unique perspective will be critical in presenting to the
court a more complete picture of the factual and legal issues in the litigation. See Miller v.
Silbermann, 832 F. Supp. 663, 674 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (granting intervention to individual tenants
and tenant advocacy organization because the proposed intervenor-defendants, “in light of their
knowledge and concern, will greatly contribute to the Court’s understanding of this case.”); see
Commack, 170 F.R.D. at 106 (granting permissive intervention to religious groups, a rabbi, and
individual consumers of kosher foods because “the intervenors will bring a different perspective
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 35 of 37
29
to the case and will contribute relevant factual variations that may assist the court in addressing
the constitutional issue raised.”); see also Ass’n of Conn. Lobbyists LLC v. Garfield, 241 F.R.D.
100, 103 (D. Conn. 2007) (finding that court will benefit from intervenors’ participation by
“offer[ing] a unique, personal and highly relevant factual perspective to the law, its development,
and its impact[,]” as well as “specialized expertise and substantial familiarity with the legal issues
that are presented for review.”).
The attorneys and legal organizations representing Proposed Intervenors can likewise
contribute specialized expertise. Proposed Intervenors’ legal representatives have a long history of
experience in litigating school segregation, integration, and diversity cases throughout the country
and including in New York City and state. See, e.g., Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954);
see also Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin (Fisher II), 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016); Schuette v. Coal. to
Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003);
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978); Stout v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ.,
882 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 2018); Thomas v. Sch. Bd. St. Martin Par., 756 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2014),
on remand, No. 6:65-cv-11314, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8580 (W.D. La. Jan. 21, 2016); Caulfield
v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y., 632 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1980); ASPIRA of New York, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of
N.Y., 58 F.R.D. 62 (S.D.N.Y. 1973); Sheff v. O’Neill, No. LND-HHD-CV-175045066-S, 2017 WL
4812624 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2017).
Proposed Intervenors, as well as the attorneys and legal organizations representing them,
thus bring unique knowledge, experience and expertise that will aid in the just, effective, and
efficient adjudication of this case.
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 36 of 37
30
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Proposed Intervenors respectfully request that this Court grant
their Motion to Intervene, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or 24(b).
Respectfully submitted on May 3, 2019 by,
/s/ Rachel M. Kleinman /s/ Sarah Hinger
Janai S. Nelson Sarah Hinger
Jin Hee Lee Jennesa Calvo-Friedman
Rachel M. Kleinman AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
Liliana Zaragoza UNION FOUNDATION
Earl A. Kirkland III* 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & New York, NY 10004
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Tel.: (212) 519-7882
40 Rector Street, 5th floor [email protected]
New York, NY 10006 [email protected]
Tel.: (212) 965-2200
[email protected] /s/ Stefanie D. Coyle
[email protected] Stefanie D. Coyle
[email protected] Kevin E. Jason
Arthur Eisenberg
Melissa Pettit**
/s/ Jose Perez NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Jose Perez FOUNDATION
Francisca Fajana 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF New York, NY 10004
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1901 Tel.: (212) 607-3300
New York, NY 10115 [email protected]
Tel.: (212) 219-3360 [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
*Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance
forthcoming
**Motion for SDNY Admission forthcoming
Case 1:18-cv-11657-ER Document 87-1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 37 of 37